small signal ins and outs like this should be perfectly safe. It's when you hook up power supplies without impedence to inputs that you have issues. You won't have access to that part of the circuit on the front panel
Really wanted to enjoy this, but it seemed like the room size of 5 was way too small. People would pop in and out endlessly hoping for some bustle but none seemed to be able to build.
What chat I did get really recreated the 14 year old edgelords in chatrooms experience though. Lots of porn gif spamming
This is certainly one of the things I am personally quite concerned about with AI: creating false equivalency with our own mental processes by adopting convenient language.
And I'll be clear that I mean more that I worry about the secondary stage where we will potentially make this mistake of trying to understand ourselves in terms of what we understand about AI -- as opposed to this first step where we try to understand AI in terms of what we understand (or at least have observed) in ourselves. Long before AI we've already been reverse applying metaphors we used to explain computing to describe our minds. I'm not completely rejecting the possibility that computational theory of mind holds, though I'm personally sceptical, but it seems to be quite vigorously embraced purely on its intuitional ease of adoption, rather than evidence.
We must remember that "the map is not the territory", as they say.
We don't know what the territory is yet, and our map might as well be a crude 13th century globe that missed the Americas and Australia and has a lot of "here be dragons".
We do risk Cargo Culting ourselves with these things. But also, the reason we even know about cargo cults is thanks to the few occasions they successfully got planes to land by looking close enough to airstrips.
We need a better grasp of what we're doing, almost regardless of where we want to end up.
Has a cargo cult really ever successfully caused a plane to land? Isn't the point that despite superficially imitating an sharp airstrip, "the planes never come"?
Fascinating. You have to wonder if they are cognizant of the associations of the term "accelrationism" with the extremes of the political spectrum and signalling a dog-whistle for one or the other, or if they just think it sounds cool?
Yes, they are, all these psychos are reading Nick Land. It’s not an accident.
> Combine technology and markets and you get what Nick Land has termed the techno-capital machine, the engine of perpetual material creation, growth, and abundance.
> Land is also known for later developing the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic ideas behind neo-reaction and the Dark Enlightenment, which he named.
The creators are aware of the political valence of accelerationism. The name “e/acc”, pronounced “ee-ack”, is a play on EA (as in, Effective Altruism). The whole thing was tongue in cheek shitposting that somehow got real traction.
As best I can tell, like most things, it's a mix of both. Some people are drawn for the dog whistles, while others are drawn for the surface-level pitch. Each seem confident that the other is the minority.
Personally, it feels like a reaction to the failure of crypto (and not the recent failure; the decade-long fits and starts that keep handing them what look like wins, but that haven't actually amounted to their preferred world yet). All of those crypto bros that feel, deep in their bones, that crypto SHOULD work, if not for all of the 'luddites' holding it back, channel their energy into a more generalizeable set of principles that otherize anyone who would tell them to not chase progress, even if the only restriction is "don't do it AT ALL COSTS. Balance it with humanity."
And if your whole philosophy is "let the fire consume because fire is pure energy and how can producing pure energy be bad, in the long run?", then I imagine "accelerationism" is still a lot more marketable than "execution engine-ism", or "harvestism", or most other terms that could accurately describe the disposition.
Accelerationists believe that the only way for a new political/social system to emerge (Communism, Fascism, whateverism) is to accelerate the downfall of status quo. So instead of engaging with the system and trying to change it, they try to enhance the worst aspects of it in the hopes that will drive people to (generally violent) revolution.
It is obviously a niche ideology you rarely run into offline, and when you do it's generally young, mentally ill, or simply very damaged people who can't imagine life ever getting better without the world burning first.
The variant supported by most Silicon Valley types appears to be the right-wing one. Andreessen's "techno-optimist manifesto" cites Filippo Marinetti, founder of the Italian futurist and fascist movements, as one of its "patron saints". Also included: Nick Land, spiritual father of the "dark enlightenment" accelerationist philosophy known known as neoreaction.
That was Marx's original theory - capitalism had to reach its full and complete development before it could transition into socialism. This is still understood in China as their rationale for supporting a market economy even in a supposedly 'socialist' country.
It could be a Marxist dog-whistle, though their literature would suggest that is unlikely, as you'd expect a few nods towards inequality.
It's also not technology that's suspect. It's the choice of the word "accelerationism" which tends to be associated with people who wish to accelerate what they see as the inevitable collapse of the current social-economic-political system. There are people who believe doing so would usher in Communisim. There seem to be much more who believe doing so would usher in an era without "globo-homo" as they seem to like to use as short hand at the moment. You might enjoy this wikipedia section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism#Fascist_accele...
Then again, it could all be a massive coincidence that this is term they have chosen to use. I would expect they will certainly attract people who don't believe in coincidence, whether they want that to be the case or not.
Fascinating. Really surprised to see they have it as "reconsider travel". Reading the explanation it makes some amount of sense. I can't say that the issues they state don't happen, it's just they are so rare I never really considered them in day to day life there as a foreigner and still after decades don't know anyone who has been affected by them outside of very publicised cases.
I'd say for the vast majority of people not directly involved in tense parts of international relations its very safe. You have much more to worry about if you are a Chinese national resident in the US, which is what most of the warnings seem to allude to.
Can you elaborate more? I honestly can't think of a time I have been unable to do what I want in Java without frameworks, but I've obviously not tried to do everything.
I'd be happy to consider it. There are a number of good technical and non-technical advantages:
* Strong, mature eco-system
* VM-based so we can easily change OS and/or other dev-ops related params.
* Large hiring pool with lots of experience in it (at least this is the case locally)
* More performant than Python, which would maybe be the next language that hits all three of these points.
Your counter-question also deflects and doesn't answer my original question: what problems can not be solved in Java without frameworks? What are examples of lego problems and duplo problems?
Maybe it's a misreading on my part, but I would interpret a "duplo" language as one I could not even build a framework in, due to a lack of low-level control.
You are answering a different question. Opting for Java is smart, albeit incredibly boring. Doing so is basically choosing to go with Spring Boot, at the same time.
You are going to do that because the Java programmers need it, Java needs it and if you don't, as another writer here said: you'll be writing all the frameworks yourself and at considerable cost.
So hating frameworks and picking Java is a dubious position.
You are basically just saying 'java frameworks are mandatory' and then when people are saying 'I've done java without frameworks' (I am also one of those. I'm not primarily a java programmer, but every time I've used java I have used it without frameworks), you're saying 'nu-uh'. You're not going to convince people out of their own experience this way.
Not really. "I did Java in a serious project without frameworks once" is not a counter to: Java needs frameworks to be generally useful.
I am not trying to convince anyone, I'm stating the case that Java and Java programmers need frameworks in a way that more modern programmming languages don't. And that this is why it looks the way it does. My theory thus explains reality.
Do you have a counter to my claim? As in: do you have many examples of companies now that use Java without having gone with Spring Boot (or basically invented it themselves?)
I did Java for a mindnumbing decade, for god's sake. Then I stayed around the JVM for another decade writing in Scala. But! This is not an argument from authority here, I'm merely trying to add some context here lest you think that I am a .NET warrior or simply hate Java from a C++ distance. I am not.
You forgot "To be generally useful". And as I've stated many times now in this thread: the proof lies in what job ads mention. They _never_ look for Java programmers without Spring Boot.
> If I can write useful software in a language without using frameworks, then said usage is not a non-negotiable requirement.
You are not Java. I can write useful software in Brainf*ck. This does not make BF generally useful. Enough, now.
Considering how many job ads for "entry level position" then go on to list a skillset that describes half an IT department, I'm not sure I would consider using these as a technical argument.
The root parent of this discussion pertains to the value of frameworks. In this context, I am making the claim that Java and Java programmers need frameworks and that hating them is basically misdirected. You are, in effect, blaming the plastic hammer for not working without first turning it into a metallic one.
You can agree with this or not but please direct your answers to the claim I am making and please be honest.
I'm frankly shocked that this is a controversial take and I can honestly say that this has made me understand why Java with Spring Boot as well as JavaScript is so prevalent still. You like it the way it is and probably always will!
I mean: judging by how most of you respond, you've probably also missed to point though so I can never be quite sure.
Sure. But since the point has to do with how Java compares to alternatives when it comes to needing frameworks in the first place, this doesn't add to your point. It detracts from it.
I'm stumped. I've never been good with handwritten Chinese, but even rotating it I can't match it to any valid character. The closest I got was 阹 which means "to surround"
